About your Search

20121118
20121118
STATION
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
that wasn't how the obama administration initially described it publicly. representative peter king of new york said petraeus had briefed the house intelligence committee on september 14, and he does not recall petraeus being so positive at the time that it was a terrorist attack. he thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement, king said. that was not my recollection. so senator feinstien, did petraeus contradict himself or has he contradicted the white house's version of events? >> we have a transcript of that meeting on that day. and petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack. and outlined who he thought might be involved in it. so any -- >> this is right after the attack? >> that's the day after the attack. i think there's no question about it. what has concerned me about this is really the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she wa
-- is not a biographer to come on, colby. >> is the obama administration guilty of a cover-up in the benghazi attack? >> i think she knew better, and if she did no better, she should not be the voice of america. . >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. >> they're talking about our u.n. ambassador, who could be the president's nominee to be secretary of state. this is about her appearance on talk shows on september 16 following the september 11 attacks in benghazi. charles krauthammer, our friend here, who is off this week -- i think he is in miami traveling -- has been hammering away at this for weeks but he said that it was fun cover story in the run-up to the election. what do we know about this? .> we don't know yet maybe the intelligence committees have some notion, but we really don't know yet. they are still conducting the investigation within the state department. it seems like there were 85 things going on at once. i am not cle
'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up these questions, but does it ego to the level of needing a special prosecutor? how far do you think this will go? >> clearly there is a movement on the republican side to keep this going. as we heard senators graham and mccain want a special investigation. we have representative mike enentire, the chairman of th
. the big difference this time, one difference this time is the position of the obama administration, which began in 2009 seeking to distance itself name usually from israel and ending its first term supporting israel which is an interesting evolution on the point of obama and in my view a hopeful one. >> there were a couple other differences. one is hamas has longer range missiles than four years ago and the middle east of 2012 is different than the middle east of 2008. we have the arab spring, egypt is no longer run by a dictator but leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the whole foreign policy portfolio that obama is facing, not just the problem in gaza, but we still have the problem with pakistan, iran, egypt and libya is still not a stable situation. i think it only amplifies the problem that this is a really dangerous world, and i think part of obama's struggle in the coming months and year is going to get some hold on exactly what our policies are, what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ because
the affair and effectively black mailed him to taylor his testimony about benghazi so it would suit the obama administration? >> no, i don't think so. you have to know david pert - petraeus. he would not have done that and i would suspect if somebody tried to black mail him or influence. he would come out and let everyone know. he testified before congress numerous times. i was with him in five of those times. and he will tell it straight forward based on the information he had at the time. >> we know it changes over time. >> you he's finding out more in the fog of war through about the benghazi. >> i think over time more and more information becomes. i was not the testimony. or he wouldn't have told me what he said . i have to leave it there. thank you for coming out and speakingitous. eye spirited debate. and much more on general petraeus and the probe we labeled benghazi gate. with the spark cash card from capital one, sven gets great rewards for his small business! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purche, everday! woo-hoo
not to go in on the ground. the big difference this time is the obama administration that began to distance itself from israel. first term supporting israel. that is an interesting evolution on obama. hopeful one. >> chris: there are other differences, too. hamas has longer range missiles. middle east is different from 2012 of the middle east of 2008. the arab spring. run by the leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the foreign policy portfolio that obama is facing. we still have problem of pakistan and iran. libya is not a stable situation. it only amplifies the problem. this is a dangerous world. it will get some hold on exactly what the policies are. what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ? that is still in doubt. they held flurry of closed door sessions with the top administration officials. best as you can tell, because they were closed door, what did we learn about the administration actions before, during and after the attack? >> there were comments about whether it was a video or terrorist attack
altered his testimony about benghazi because members of the administration or someone knew about this affair and effectively blackmailed him to tailor his testimony about benghazi so it would suit the obama administration? >> no. i don't think so. you have t to know david petrae. he would not have done that. in fact, i would suspect that if somebody had tried to black mail him or influence him a certain way, he would do the exact opposite anden come out and let everyone know. he's testified before congress numerous times. i was with him during five of those times, and he will tell it straight forward the way it is based on the information he has at that time. we know truth changes over time a little bit as you get more information. >> so you think that's what's happening now, he's just finding out more through the fog of war about benghazi? >> well, i think over time more and more information becomes available. i wasn't at the testimony yesterday. i don't have the need to know or the clearance to know any more, and he wouldn't have told me exactly what he said anyway because he d
from a belly? people from 19 states have filed petitions from america. on the obama administration's we the people website. and some are close to getting the 25,000 signatures needed to require an administration response with texas a mere 600 short as of monday afternoon. it is particularly feasible for texas to withdraw from the union and to do so would protect the citizen standard of living and resecure their rights in accordance with the beliefs of our founding fathers that are no longer reflected by the federal government. so what do pandas make out of all of this? >> they don't know anything. they are stupid pandas. what do you make of this? some states can do this. some states can't. >> i think texas can pull it off. they are in a grown upstate. i think louisiana was a close second. they would be more like the high school kid that ran away from home and spend all of their money on booze and hung out with mississippi, got in trouble and they lived in texas for a little while until we took them back. >> you know, it is an interesting point. the idea creates an experiment in which yo
it tell us about the whole approach, the light footprint that the obama administration recommended. >> chris: what would that be? i haven't heard that phrase until today. but it is in the papers. >> the idea that once we had gadhafi out in libya, we weren't going to go in with a big new presence and huge new diplomatic installation and we were going to try and do more sort of with less as it were. >> chris: not in libya... >> and that is being applied across the region as well. >> chris: it is interesting, up to this point, secretary of state clinton has kind of avoided much fire of libya. she said that she was taking responsibility for it, but that was in the middle of the night, at an interview down in south america. and she has been absent from the hearings, so far. as they focus, maybe less on the timeline and more on the question of why these diplomats were so undefended, so vulnerable, with all the warnings before hand, could secretary clinton come under fire. >> she'll have to answer questions, but i imagine what she'll say is they didn't realize how vulnerable they were and
of the surveillance in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the petri at act and continued under the obama administration. the government has more access to info about us than at anytime in history. a small example of what this looks like. check out this graph of u.s. government from google. these are requests that don't require warrants and this doesn't include the security related requests not disclosed. for awhile, i thought the combination of these trends, the u bik wiity of technology was pushing us to a future where citizens would be unable to keep their secrets while the government keeps its secrets. i feared it would end up totally exposed to each other and the state. the state and its doing and what it's doing in our name would be a mystery. then miraculously, but also inevitably, they collided with each other in the petraeus affair. the four-star general's communications with broadwell reveal a lot of mundane personal failings. really, it seems not anything scandalous as far as the public's fear goes. the only possible scandal, as far as i can tell, is the conditions which the fbi came to read
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)